Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

civil recovery for shoplifting


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2506 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

no you are not liable in any way; in fact they may have a job sueing ( civil action ) anybody under the age of 18 ( age of majority ) in law; but you will get some demanding and threatening letters.

so it would be up to her if she pays or bluffs it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i do think that the amount of fine is severe(she is 17)

 

If you reckon that an arrest is the softer option, take them up on that.

 

This is all eventually a question of supply and demand. Were every person accused of an offence to insist on the right to a day in court, RLP would be out of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I havent been on in a while unfortunatly, but i see everyone is unhappy. At the end of the day, security officers issue civil recovery. Solicitors then take on the case and proceed to collect the specified amount. When people dont pay, it goes to court. I see this on a day to day basis and lots of people do pay it. Correct me if im wrong but does this not affect your credit rating?? I like to see the maturity of people on this site. I was only explaining what happens on a day to day basis in many stores, large and small. I am pretty offended that i was targeted because of the post i wrote. If your unhappy with what i said, target the retailers who are doing this. I merely worked for them and was doing as instructed.

 

Do i agree with civil recovery?? Yes and no. If the courts find you guilty of the offence then yes. If not, then no such fine should be issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have had the same thing,just found out today that my daughter had been caught shoplifting,god knows why as she has always been well provided for,from a good background and works hard at college,anyway she was caught with a £5 tester foundation at boots,they told her she could either accept a fine or be arrested and end up having a criminal record,she was scared of me and her father finding out so she opted for the fine,we found out when a letter arrived to say that she had to pay £137.50,as she has no income are we as parents liable to pay this,any info would be grateful,fair enough i agree with what companies are doing to re-coup money from shoplifters and do not condone what she did,and i know she is ashamed of herself too,but i do think that the amount of fine is severe(she is 17)

 

I worked for boots and i have issued fines numerous times. Ask them to prove your daughter commited the offence, if they cant, then they should write off the fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder regarding the status of RLP etc:

RLP do not issue “Fines”. They issue speculative invoices. The value of these invoices bears no relationship to any actual costs.

RLP have never taken anyone to court (in any event I think that the retailer would be the one to do that, if they could prove any losses)

A police caution is not an admission of guilt

Even if you had been convicted of the shoplifting offence in the courts, it would still be possible to challenge the value claimed.

The tactic that has been working is to reply with a single short (1 sentence) letter that does not mention any circumstances etc , denying any liability to them or their clients, nothing else, no explanations, then ignoring any future letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for boots and i have issued fines numerous times. Ask them to prove your daughter commited the offence, if they cant, then they should write off the fine.

 

As has already been pointed out, you have not, and indeed cannot, issue fines - only a Court can issue a 'fine'.

 

What you have issued many times, is an invoice which invites the person concerned to pay a sum of money in order to avoid a possible civil action.

 

Just for the sake of clarification....

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

I have had the same thing, had been cought shoplifting item 12£. There was no police involved, i didn't sign anything. They let me pay for item and to take it with me. I apologized and they let me go. Now i recived letter (see link). Letter seys that this is Third settlement offer, but it actually first letter from them. I never received anything from them. I am mother of two i am unemployed i can't afford to pay that sum of money just before christmas. Please help me . I don't know what to do. Maybe on first letter was less than 150 £ to pay......but i didn'

t see it.

CIMG9827.jpg

Edited by nonchalance
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

thread closed to stop innocent newbie bumping.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2506 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...